Skip to content


Miss. N. Sturmer and anr. Vs. Chatoo Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.813
AppellantMiss. N. Sturmer and anr.
RespondentChatoo Rai
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 150 - rent-free grantee--resumption--suit for declaration that defendant is rent-free grantee--jurisdiction of civil or revenue court--res judicata. - - their case is one which is clearly not cognizable by the civil court.tudball, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain zemindars against the defendant-respondent chhatu rai for a declaration that they are the proprietors of an area of 2 bighas, 19 biswas, 4 dhurs of land, and that the defendant is not the proprietor there of and that his name cannot be entered in the pattidari but that he is in possession thereof as a tenant holding rent-free in lieu of services. it is an admitted fact that at the recent settlement the plaintiffs-appellants brought a suit in the court of an assistant settlement officer against the same defendant as a rent free grantee asking for the resumption of the land or in the alternative that rent should be fixed upon it. that case was decided in favour of the defendant, the revenue court holding, rightly or wrongly,.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain zemindars against the defendant-respondent Chhatu Rai for a declaration that they are the proprietors of an area of 2 bighas, 19 biswas, 4 dhurs of land, and that the defendant is not the proprietor there of and that his name cannot be entered in the pattidari but that he is in possession thereof as a tenant holding rent-free in lieu of services. It is an admitted fact that at the recent Settlement the plaintiffs-appellants brought a suit in the Court of an Assistant Settlement Officer against the same defendant as a rent free grantee asking for the resumption of the land or in the alternative that rent should be fixed upon it. That case was decided in favour of the defendant, the Revenue Court holding, rightly or wrongly, that the defendants' rights had developed into those of a full proprietor and he was recorded by the Settlement Officer as an under proprietor. The plaintiffs have therefore brought the present suit in the Civil Court for the above-mentioned declaration. Their case is one which is clearly not cognizable by the Civil Court. The matter is one which is concluded by the ruling of this Court in Baldeo Singh v. Mardan Singh 7 A.L.J. 818 : 6 Ind. Cas. 425, in which it was held that the question of proprietary title based upon what was originally at least a rent-free grant not only can be tried by a Revenue Court but is exclusively triable by such Court. That ruling applies to the present case. It was published after this appeal has been filed. The suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Court below on this point. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //